"There *are* some kids out there that will NOT learn to typically interact with others no matter how many opportunities they have thrown their way. The reasons might be several, some of which are 1. too much sensory overload 2. developmentally not ready to do so 3. too much pain and 4. plain disinterest."

I absolutely agree! My son was one of them, though we met several autistic kids who were able to thrive without ABA or other intensive therapies when they were in small typical settings.

Our intervention of choice was Floortime (along with others) -- and I am still a "floortime parent" all these years later. What I love most about the approach is that it is so close to natural play, and so supportive of parent/child bonding.

Best,

Lisa (www.autism.about.com)

Lisa Rudy says, ". . .for very young children who are considered "borderline" autistic (by which is meant verbal, engaged, but with "red flag" symptoms), 40 hours a week of 1:1 discrete trials, along with many additional hours of intensive intervention, may not be the best choice."

I agree.

While ABA has been extremely helpful to many children, and used to be pretty much the only behavioral therapy out there, there are options that are better--in my experience, and also backed up with some research now.

Two of these we personally used for our son, Noah: the Greenspan method (also known as floor time) and RDI (Relationship Development Intervention).

While Greenspan has been around for a while, and can be easily found by googling "Stanley Greenspan," many parents have still not heard of RDI.

We personally used this therapy for two years, with wonderful results.

Before RDI, things were going very well--the GFCF diet, the supplements, speech and sensory integration therapy, and then a year and a half of Greenspan--all had brought Noah back to us almost completely, but something was still "off," just not quite right.

RDI, unlike ABA, is scientifically based on typical development from infancy through early to mid-childhood. It helps fill in the developmental "gaps" (or the "core deficits") of autism, rather than just teaching specific scripts or behaviors; in particular, it's designed to foster emotional and social growth, areas that ABA doesn't really target.

More at www.rdiconnect.com.

I just thought it worth a mention, because we hit some kind of a wall, and biomedical treatment wasn't enough.

So many autistic kids. . .someone else will hit that wall tomorrow, and maybe they'll find their help here.

"No child can learn to interact typically with anyone if he never has the opportunity to do so. And an infant or toddler whose life is made up entirely of behavioral and therapeutic interventions has virtually no opportunity to learn, explore or develop typically."

I feel I must respond to your statement above.

There *are* some kids out there that will NOT learn to typically interact with others no matter how many opportunities they have thrown their way. The reasons might be several, some of which are 1. too much sensory overload 2. developmentally not ready to do so 3. too much pain and 4. plain disinterest.

An infant whose life is made up of just behavioral and therapeutic interventions will never ever be able to do anything neurotypically UNTIL all the vaccine toxins are removed from his/ her body. The ones that do claim only behavioral interventions helped were undoubtedly either less affected, or their methylation kicked in and then they were able to detox effectively, naturally. You cannot achieve typical behaviors by mere exposure to typical peers, no matter how much of it you provide. You have to have basic fundamental development in place (or have minimal injury, looking at it from the other perspective) to be able to take off and sustain "NT like" behavior from the type of interaction that you describe. With this caveat in place *only*, would the exposure you describe be met with some success, not otherwise.

FYI-They are censoring posts on that blog now and mischaracterizing JB's position. same old same old..

I'm with Tanya. There was no good choice for me either, not having a child on the spectrum or with any other known vaccine damage.

By the way, while Generation Rescue and Dan Olmsted deserve full credit for doing independent research on vaccinated vs. never-vaccinated kids, I just want to point out that I have been calling for such studies since the late 1980s and wrote about it here: http://www.ageofautism.com/2007/12/seeking-the-tru.html

I forgot to mention in that column that I was one of two parents invited by the IOM to a Vaccine Safety Workshop (Kris Severyn being the other one, and she has a PhD in pharmacology) around 1994, after I testified. At the workshop, I kept bringing up the fact that such studies were needed OVER AND OVER AGAIN. They were sick of me by the end, I'm sure. A lot of good it did.

All the best,
Sandy

Hi - just wanted to check in and thank you for your interest in my blog. I understand, of course, that Age of Autism is NOT an "agnostic" publication -- so appreciate readers' willingness to converse without rancor.

As an aside, I had created that "do vaccines cause autism?" poll about 2 years ago, and it faded into obscurity... I'm thrilled to see so many people making their thoughts known.

This is an important turning point for the autism community; I'm very hopeful that so much attention and interest from the general community will finally lead to solid research. I'm particularly hopeful that we will see the CDC take on the research GenRescue has suggested: comparing autism rates in vaccinated/unvaccinated populations. As you've said and shown -- how tough is that?!

Here's hoping.

Best,

Lisa Rudy
About.com Guide to Autism
www.autism.about.com

Laura, I think that's a really good point. I recently was contacted to possibly write a piece for another publication. The editor told me that after reading all the stories and studies he was "agnostic" as to whether vaccines are implicated in autism. I just don't see how you can read that stuff and still be agnostic, but there is so much garbage out there, promoted by so many reputable people and organizations, that people have a hard time figuring it out. The coverage of the Poling case is a classic example -- I mean, the U.S. government says, vaccines caused this girl's autism and we owe her money. What could be simpler? Yet the media has been spun by the cdc etc. till its head is spinning and it can't figure out something as basic as this.

Re: the fence-sitters: before I started "really" reading up on Autism, as a parent of a newly-diagnosed child, I would have been considered a fence-sitter, too! It's almost too hard to believe our government and trusted physicians would let this happen to our precious children. After reading "Evidence of Harm", I got off the fence and jumped down into the biomedical recovery field. I told my friends and family what I learned. However, many people (most people, I'd say) have not done the reading, or the research on Autism and vaccines, nor do they have friends and family in the biomedical field to help bring them down off the fence (or push them, as the case may be in some instances!). Some people have to be shown evidence over and over before they believe.

I think all of the coverage after the Poling case is a good start, but it's just that -- a start. There will continue to be fence-sitters, who don't know enough about the issue or want to jump on either side of the fence. Unfortunately, until Autism affects someone they know or love, they may not understand the importance of the issue or understand why we parents are so passionate about the vaccine-Autism connection.

Oh, and thanks for pointing out the poll -- I didn't see that the first time, either.

I wonder when the link between autism/autism like symptoms and mercury became "less credible"? If anything, I would think the fact that, according to CBS News, at least 9 other cases (besides the Polings)have been settled by the vaccine court and we don't know much about them would preclude her from saying anything has less credibility. Mercury by it's very nature, either Ethyl or Methyl, makes it as much a suspect as the number of vaccines on a certain part of the population. I would think an autism guide would have this fundamental information in her files and notes.

Diane,

Thanks for the tip and the link! I missed it the first time around, and only read the main article!

I voted!

Let's get out there and vote!

And check the results, everybody!! Very, very encouraging. . .

Well, that didn't make me as angry as some things I have read...

I still find it mind-boggling that some people don't believe the material safety data sheets on Thimerosal. They state the dangers. The results have come to fruition in epidemic proportions.

Wishy-washiness is completely unacceptable when it comes to injecting babies, pregnant women, and people in general with known neurotoxins and known carcinogens.